Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
El Al Cargo 747 Emergency Landing In Belgrade  
User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10099 times:

Fortunately a non-event, an El Al Cargo Boeing 747-200F carrying dangerous (flammable) cargo made an emergency landing in BEG on Sunday, after fire-alarms went-off in mid air on a flight from AMS to TLV.

BEG was temporarily closed and a priority landing was granted. It turned out to be a false alarm.



In Serbian: http://www.blic.co.yu/hronika.php?id=22138


Kafa, čaj, šraf?
44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10008 times:

With weapons onboard?

Glad nobody was hurt


User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9997 times:



Quoting Cobra27 (Reply 1):
With weapons onboard?

Your guess is good as mine... the airport is refusing to comment on the cargo.... just saying it was corrosive and highly flammable.



Kafa, čaj, šraf?
User currently offlineKappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9983 times:



Quoting JoKeR (Reply 2):
Your guess is good as mine... the airport is refusing to comment on the cargo.... just saying it was corrosive and highly flammable.

Nothing new from this airline. Brings back memories from the Bijlmer crash in the Netherlands. They wouldn't comment on the cargo then either, even if it could be dangerous for the rescue workers.



L1011,733,734,73G,738,743,744,752,763,772,77W,DC855,DC863,DC930,DC950,MD11,MD88,306,319,320,321,343,346,ARJ85,CR7,E195
User currently offlineWorldrider From Switzerland, joined Nov 2007, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9968 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 3):
Nothing new from this airline. Brings back memories from the Bijlmer crash in the Netherlands. They wouldn't comment on the cargo then either, even if it could be dangerous for the rescue workers.

i remember that day... heavy memories.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9828 times:



Quoting JoKeR (Thread starter):
El Al Cargo Boeing 747-200F carrying dangerous (flammable) cargo

Any airplane that has fuel aboard is carrying flammable cargo.  Yeah sure


User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9801 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Any airplane that has fuel aboard is carrying flammable cargo.

Please tell me you're joking...  banghead 

Especially for you, let me rephrase my sentence, besides jet fuel, the aircraft was carrying dangerous, highly flammable cargo - not in its wings, but on the main deck and in its cargo hold.

BUT, but... the plane also had rubber tires, was covered in metal, had computerized avionics and was piloted by homo sapiens - bipedal primates, an intriguing cluster made up of cells, capable of emotions but also stupidity!



Kafa, čaj, šraf?
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27115 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9782 times:



Quoting Kappel (Reply 3):
Nothing new from this airline. Brings back memories from the Bijlmer crash in the Netherlands. They wouldn't comment on the cargo then either, even if it could be dangerous for the rescue workers.

Yes makes you wonder why no one has done anything about it !!! Rescue workers should have the right to refuse to attend such emergencies unless they know what the cargo is !!! How stupid can you get . If you dont know what the cargo is then how are you best to decide what to use to put out any fire etc....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Any airplane that has fuel aboard is carrying flammable cargo. Yeah sure

They are talking about whats inside the containers not the fuel tanks !! I guess you knew that anyway  Yeah sure


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9774 times:

fact is that El Al cargo does operate in an environment that is not very well defined,in that anything that comes close to the state of Israel is automatically "secret","not of your business" or" vital for the survival of Israel"...
Based on that,El Al continues to transport all kinds of items that nobody really wants to know about...
The AMS incident has left many people dead and handicaped for the rest of their lives.-the truth about what really went on will always remain "..not of your business.."



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27115 posts, RR: 60
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9750 times:



Quoting JoKeR (Reply 6):
BUT, but... the plane also had rubber tires, was covered in metal, had computerized avionics and was piloted by homo sapiens - bipedal primates, an intriguing cluster made up of cells, capable of emotions but also stupidity!

LOL....

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 8):
"secret","not of your business" or" vital for the survival of Israel"...

Well they should fly them in military planes then and not ''hide'' things in commericial cargo planes. I dont know why the EU allows flights out of AMS if there is a possibility of ''suspect'' cargo being loaded onto EL AL Cargo planes. I guess unless a major disaster happens where the cargo seriously damages / contaminates large areas then nothing will be done.


User currently offlineAirbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4273 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9687 times:



Quoting JoKeR (Reply 6):
let me rephrase my sentence, besides jet fuel, the aircraft was carrying dangerous, highly flammable cargo - not in its wings, but on the main deck and in its cargo hold.

So, no big deal. Cargo is checked upon acceptance and build up in AMS according IATA regulations for Dangerous Goods. Packaging is in good condition at this stage. When on a pallet, it's basically impossible to get broken of to get on fire, under normal circumstances.

This case has nothing to do with the flammable cargo on board, either the corrosives.

This will turn out as a mechanic defect on the aircraft systems somewhere. You can't blame the sort of cargo carried on this plane.



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9682 times:

El Al Flight LY1862, en route from New York to Tel Aviv, crashes into a block of apartment buildings shortly after take-off from Schiphol Airport, located south-east of Amsterdam. At least 43 people on the ground are killed (The exact number of deaths is unknown, since many of the incinerated victims were undocumented immigrants). Information about the plane’s cargo and the crash is suppressed: El Al withholds information about the plane’s several tons of “military cargo;” 12 hours of videotape made during the rescue and clean-up operation (42 cassettes in all), along with police audiotapes, are erased and shredded; and El Al documents and the plane’s cockpit voice recorder (CVR) mysteriously disappear. It is later learned that the plane, a Boeing 747, was carrying several tons of chemicals, including hydrofluoric acid, isopro-panol and dimethyl methylphosphonate (DMMP)—three of the four chemicals used in the production of sarin nerve gas. The shipment of chemicals—approved by the US commerce department—reportedly came from Solkatronic Chemicals Inc. of Morrisville, Pennsylvania and its final destination was the Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness Ziona near Tel Aviv, Israel, which is reported to be the “Israeli military and intelligence community’s front organization for the development, testing and production of chemical and biological weapons.” A former IIBR biologist later tells the London Sunday Times in October of 1998, “There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapon… which is not manufactured at the institute.” In fact, it was IIBR that provided the poison and the antidote used in the attempted assassination of a Hamas leader in Jordan in 1998. The IIBR does not appear on any maps and is off-limits even to members of Israel’s Parliament, the Knesset. Israel denies that the chemicals were to be used in the production of chemical weapons and instead claims that they were needed to test gas masks. But as an article in Earth Island Journal notes: “[T]his explanation is puzzling since it only takes a few grams to conduct such tests. Once combined, the chemicals aboard Flight 1862 could have produced 270 kilos of sarin—sufficient to kill the entire population of a major world city.” During hearings on the crash in 1999, it is learned that since 1973, El Al planes are never inspected by customs or the Dutch Flight Safety Board and that El Al security at Schiphol is a branch of the Israeli Mossad. Furthermore, it is discovered that every Sunday evening a mysterious El Al cargo flight arrives at Schiphol en route from New York to Tel Aviv. The flights are never displayed on the airport arrival monitors and the flights’ documents are processed in a special, unmarked room. [BBC, 10/2/1998; Earth Island Journal, 1999; Covert Action Quarterly, 10/20/2004] Over a thousand residents living near the crash site later become sick with respiratory, neurological and mobility ailments and a rise in cancer and birth defects is later detected among the population. [ZNet, 10/12/2002]


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9669 times:



Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 10):
This will turn out as a mechanic defect on the aircraft systems somewhere. You can't blame the sort of cargo carried on this plane.

Who blamed the cargo?

Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 10):
So, no big deal.

That's what I recall summarizing at the begging of this thread.

Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 10):
under normal circumstances.

Yes but things can and do go wrong... remember the SAA 295, "Helderberg" - A combi 747 that went down close to MRU in 1987? Fire in the combi cargo area



Kafa, čaj, šraf?
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27115 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9639 times:



Quoting JoKeR (Reply 12):
Who blamed the cargo?

Kappel brought up interesting points. I was replying to that. What if the A/C was carrying dangerous cargo and it had crashed?? Then the issue of apparant secrecy came up of EL AL not telling authorities whats inside!! That is very worrying and even more so after ready Beaucaires post !!! Its quite shocking to be honest.


User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9615 times:



Quoting OA260 (Reply 13):
Kappel brought up interesting points. I was replying to that. What if the A/C was carrying dangerous cargo and it had crashed?? Then the issue of apparant secrecy came up of EL AL not telling authorities whats inside!! That is very worrying and even more so after ready Beaucaires post !!! Its quite shocking to be honest.

Looking at it from that perspective, I agree, and that is exactly the reason behind this story being published in the local papers... the article mentions the Amsterdam accident and the fact that BEG did not want to say the nature of the "corrosive and dangerous" cargo.



Kafa, čaj, šraf?
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13139 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9595 times:

It is possible that legitment chemicals for specialized industrial, medical or military use could be on board as well as items with high-tech batteries could be on any freight flight. Remember about 2 years ago a UPS DC-8 flight caught fire during landing at PHL as apparently some laptop computer batteries shorted.

User currently offlineBasefly From Denmark, joined Apr 2007, 206 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9595 times:



Quoting JoKeR (Reply 6):

Good stuff......  highfive 



757/777-A340/A380, Love them.
User currently offlineAlexEU From Serbia, joined Oct 2007, 1817 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9587 times:

BEG is second emergency airport for LH cargo, AFAIK ?

I am glad that El Al 747 made it. There are rumours spreading in Belgrade that they will construct pararrel runway, because BEG ''will'' become cargo hub...

Cheers, Alex


User currently offlineAirbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4273 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9580 times:

The cargo facility who handles LY at AMS is supposed to check the DGR on board LY aircraft as per regulations. I did not say that things can't go wrong, but under normal circumstances, class 3 DG/RFL (restricted flammable liquids) won't get on fire during inflight and when build in a proper on a uld or tied-down in the lower deck bulk hold.

Since the accident in 1992, also at AMS, handling relating to LY and Dangerous Goods changed. Dutch authorities are very keen on airlines 'with a name' and check them often.

Quoting JoKeR (Reply 12):
Who blamed the cargo?

Nobody blamed the cargo, but, it's mentioned strongly in the first post. A plane 'carrying flammable cargo' made an emergency landing. So, probably, you think it's a point to mention.
Of course, things can go wrong, but packing conditions of dangerous goods can also stand in emergency situations.
Of course, when a plane crashes, situations will change completely.



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineJoKeR From Serbia, joined Nov 2004, 2238 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9549 times:



Quoting Airbuseric (Reply 18):

Nobody blamed the cargo, but, it's mentioned strongly in the first post. A plane 'carrying flammable cargo' made an emergency landing. So, probably, you think it's a point to mention.
Of course, things can go wrong, but packing conditions of dangerous goods can also stand in emergency situations.
Of course, when a plane crashes, situations will change completely.

Just a misunderstanding Big grin We're thinking the same thing...

Cheers!



Kafa, čaj, šraf?
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27115 posts, RR: 60
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9544 times:



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 15):
It is possible that legitment chemicals for specialized industrial, medical or military use could be on board as well as items with high-tech batteries could be on any freight flight.

I dont mind weapons like machine guns etc.... being transported as cargo , but IF and only IF they are shipping dangerous chemicals around in EL AL cargo planes then they should not be allowed near civilian airports. I wouldn't want to be sitting on the runway in AMS or any other airport for that matter knowing that a 747 laiden with dangerous chemicals was next to me.


User currently offlineAirbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4273 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9385 times:



Quoting OA260 (Reply 20):
I wouldn't want to be sitting on the runway in AMS or any other airport for that matter knowing that a 747 laiden with dangerous chemicals was next to me.

 Smile a lot of chemicals will be dangerous (if used in an improper way). And a lot of dangerous chemicals are transported by air (such as corrisives, toxic substances, environmental hazardous substances, viruses, explosives, radioactive materials etc.), but as long as they are packed to the regulations, in proper boxes or drums, and handled in the correct way, basically nothing can happen.
Such chemicals can even be found in lowerdeck cargo holds on passenger flights, although in smaller quantities.



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineDC10BHX From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 228 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9363 times:



Quoting OA260 (Reply 20):
I wouldn't want to be sitting on the runway in AMS or any other airport for that matter knowing that a 747 laiden with dangerous chemicals was next to me.

I hate to tell you OA260 that most of the flights you have been on have probably had at least some dangerous goods being carried as Cargo on board. There are exceptions to this of course (FR / EZY / etc) but there are very few Airlines (especially the long haul carriers) that do not take dangerous goods on board their aircraft. This could be anything from Class 1.4S (explosives) to Class 6 (Poisons) or even Class 8 (Corrosive). There are certain rules about the quantities of dangerous goods that can be carried (both on Passenger and Cargo aircraft) which have to be obeyed but the simple fact is that most Airlines can and do carry Hazardous goods on board their flights.

That reminds me my Hazardous goods course needs to be booked up for next year. Everyone who handles this sort of commodity HAS to undertake training on a regular basis. For me the course is every two years with an exam at the end (which is memory serves me right has a pass mark of about 85%). This will be my 12th course since starting in the airfreight industry (now I do feel old).



I'm lucky my job is my hobby
User currently offlineAirbuseric From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 4273 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9349 times:



Quoting DC10BHX (Reply 22):
That reminds me my Hazardous goods course needs to be booked up for next year. Everyone who handles this sort of commodity HAS to undertake training on a regular basis. For me the course is every two years with an exam at the end (which is memory serves me right has a pass mark of about 85%). This will be my 12th course since starting in the airfreight industry (now I do feel old).

hehe, I know what you mean!! I also have to go for refresher next year, and have to score at least 80% to pass.



"The whole world steps aside for the man who knows where he is going"
User currently offlineOA260 From Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 27115 posts, RR: 60
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9349 times:



Quoting DC10BHX (Reply 22):
There are certain rules about the quantities of dangerous goods that can be carried (both on Passenger and Cargo aircraft) which have to be obeyed but the simple fact is that most Airlines can and do carry Hazardous goods on board their flights.

Would civilian airliners be allowed to carry bulk supplies similar to a cargo A/C?? The EL AL example seems to be totally different than practices of other airlines. I presume all these things loaded onto a civilian airliner would be properly documented?? Where as in certain reports EL AL has kept it all top secret.


25 GARUDAROD : Geez you guys have pretty low standards. When Ive taken the test you had to have 95% or better to pass, anything less and you have to do the whole co
26 Airbuseric : Dangerous Goods of any kind, flown on any IATA carrier, Full Cargo Aircraft or on a Passenger Aircraft, are subject to the regulations, which also me
27 Post contains images Airbuseric : My personal scores are higher and IATA certified. But 80% is a minimum standard to pass the exam as being airline staff. I think cargo forwarders hav
28 DC10BHX : In all fairness the minimum pass marks have changed over the last couple of courses I have completed. At one stage the pass mark was 75% (when I did
29 Post contains images FLYACYYZ : Surprised to see the Cargo*ELAL* titles on the aircraft. Thought their freighters travelled incognito.
30 Kappel : It's good to hear that security at AMS has tightened after the accident. They still are a frequent visitor at AMS, still with 742's (like the one tha
31 LXA340 : It seriously get's time the LY replaces those planes with B744's
32 TodaReisinger : One more great event organized by El Al's outstanding public relations Department..... On a day when El Al has signed a historic code-sharing agreemen
33 Post contains images BlueSkys : If the plane was full of pax, and was an El AL plane, refusing to tell me what the cargo on board would prevent me from trying rescue anyone.... YOU
34 Ceph : I guess that the rescue workers had been briefed on the cargo but just that they do not want to comment to the public on the cargo carried.
35 PanHAM : What I am missing totally here is the routing of the aircraft. Was it on the way to or from TLV? Also, some here really have some hysteria about DGR.
36 Post contains images PanHAM : They only whip @ss when you say "dangerous prophets" or dangerous and-I-don't-write-that-name-here. GoOd almighty, I should not write anything before
37 Post contains images OA260 : Brilliant , thanks for that . Its exactly the info I wanted .
38 Post contains images BlueSkys : Just imagine that an Iran Air landed in AMS and refused to answer to what was onboard, do you think they would be let go so quickly? I would not have
39 777STL : That doesn't make much sense, but considering your nationality, I'm not surprised you have such a viewpoint. Military cargo jets for all different na
40 BlueSkys : Are you hinting at the fact that because I am Canadian I am uninformed and I do not have a firm grasp on world issues? Can you possibly be that narro
41 777STL : Not at all. I'm merely intimating that because you're Canadian, you may be predisposed to disliking the US. I mean, you're reaching pretty far to dra
42 Viscount724 : I have never seen cargo flights, regardless of airline, displayed on arrival monitors at any airports.
43 BlueSkys : I have no dislike for the US at all. For some US policies.... Of course I do. Just as much as I have a big dislike for many Canadian policies... I ha
44 PanHAM : Times and bed buddies change. Not so long ago, in the 80s when Iran was at war with Iraq, Israel supplied military goods to Iran. We had almost daily
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NWA 747 Emergency Landing In ORD posted Fri Jul 8 2005 14:42:30 by UAL Bagsmasher
Onur Air "Emergency" Landing In Belgrade (MAN-AYT) posted Sat Aug 4 2007 01:58:12 by JoKeR
1992 El Al Cargo Crash In AMS On Nat'l Geo Channel posted Tue Mar 28 2006 04:47:50 by 777DadandJr
NW 747 Makes Emergency Landing In China posted Sat Jan 26 2002 09:30:06 by Singapore_Air
Northwest 747 Makes Emergency Landing In Tokyo posted Tue Jun 5 2001 08:26:43 by Jiml1126
EL AL Wants Grow Its Presence In LatAm posted Tue Nov 13 2007 11:16:06 by USADreamliner
AiR Plus Comet Emergency Landing In ASU posted Thu Nov 1 2007 12:31:55 by PZ707
An-12 Emergency Landing In Cambodia posted Wed Oct 17 2007 12:37:47 by SIBILLE
DJ Plane Makes An Emergency Landing In ROK posted Mon Aug 13 2007 14:51:26 by Aauzou
Pinnacle Emergency Landing In MEM 29/07 posted Mon Jul 30 2007 12:00:08 by Sampa737